AuthorTopic: Black Conservatives (Read 18925 times)

1) The corporations control nothing. PEOPLE control the corporations, and not just the owners, also the consumers. Remember the poisoned dog-food scandal a few months ago? It wasn't the CEO of ALPO who was outraged, it was the owner of Fido. No more deadly dog-food... Also, Imus was fired because Al Sharpton organized radio listeners. Corporations are pushovers.

Yeah, it wasn't quite that simple.

More like releasing a product that does such damage is illegal, and the company faces stiff penalties from various (government instituted) health codes. Shareholders could care less whether fido dies, because more often than not the consumer in general is too obtuse to make that connection. If you need an example, take a look at big tobacco. If you want further examples of how corporations and shareholders are slow to react to market forces (because they tend to hold a bit more control of market forces), read Ralph Nader.

Shareholders care about making money. That's it. And because of that, they control the market. See: the huge, huge profits of oil companies.

1) The corporations control nothing. PEOPLE control the corporations, and not just the owners, also the consumers. Remember the poisoned dog-food scandal a few months ago? It wasn't the CEO of ALPO who was outraged, it was the owner of Fido. No more deadly dog-food... Also, Imus was fired because Al Sharpton organized radio listeners. Corporations are pushovers.

Yeah, it wasn't quite that simple.

More like releasing a product that does such damage is illegal, and the company faces stiff penalties from various (government instituted) health codes. Shareholders could care less whether fido dies, because more often than not the consumer in general is too obtuse to make that connection. If you need an example, take a look at big tobacco. If you want further examples of how corporations and shareholders are slow to react to market forces (because they tend to hold a bit more control of market forces), read Ralph Nader.

Shareholders care about making money. That's it. And because of that, they control the market. See: the huge, huge profits of oil companies.

Government doesn't react any faster (ex: Slave Trade) often the goverment (in a democractic republic like ours) only reacts when the public reacts.

The military is a perfect example of government control's affect on wages.

Not at all, the military is a perfect example of many people willing to put something above the bottom line on their paychecks when choosing employment. Every single officer with combat experience could get five times their army salary by signing up for a private contractor, private security companies etc, but they make the choice to stay in the Army because they believe in what they do and the cause they have dedicated their life to.

And yet, these people doing something so honorable are exploited by the government because of it... If that isn't an argument against government control, then it is at least an example of how the government is no better than the corporate world.

More like releasing a product that does such damage is illegal, and the company faces stiff penalties from various (government instituted) health codes. Shareholders could care less whether fido dies, because more often than not the consumer in general is too obtuse to make that connection. If you need an example, take a look at big tobacco. If you want further examples of how corporations and shareholders are slow to react to market forces (because they tend to hold a bit more control of market forces), read Ralph Nader.

Big Tobacco is a POOR example. At this point, people know the health risks of smoking and choose to do so anyway. The government isn't your mommy, it shouldn't protect you from yourself.

And Shareholders DO care about Fido dying, because when Fido dies, they will get lawsuit-pwn3d.

Forget the shareholders though. When the story about the dog food hit the airwaves, every pet owner in america stopped buying the affected pet-foods. End of market for ALPO. Hence, the consumers control the market -- but only can truly exert that control when...

Quote

Shareholders care about making money. That's it. And because of that, they control the market. See: the huge, huge profits of oil companies.

...a cartel doesn't exist, and Oil is a cartel. Sure ExxonMobile would REALLY like BP out of the market, but the fact of the matter is, that ExxonMobile cannot buy Oil any cheaper than BP can. ExxonMobile cannot produce gasoline any cheaper than BP can... etc. The oil-exporting countries control the price of oil and the price of gas. The oil industry is lacking in competition because of the nature of the market.

If you really want to induce competition and lower gas prices, go to Ford with 100,000 of your best friends and promise to buy any car they make that runs on pure ethanol...

Also, if people are as weary of the exorberant price of gas, then why don't we mobilize? Oh yeah, it's because things aren't as simple as a capitalist would make it out to be. People are still buying SUV's at a greater rate than hybrids; alternative fuels are still marginal. Yet most, if not all, oil companies are raking in billions per quarter alone. And don't even get me started about the slow market reaction to global warming (which i'm sure you don't even believe).

Answer these questions:

1. Do you think people are sick of paying as much as they do for gas?2. Why don't we collectively do the things necessary to change that via the system as it works (ie, stop buying gas, start demanding more efficient or alternative fuel vehicles)?

That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you think BigMed is doing a good job keeping people (other than the affluent) in good shape now. And if you seriously think that, not just trying to argue.. well.

Quote

And yet, these people doing something so honorable are exploited by the government because of it... If that isn't an argument against government control, then it is at least an example of how the government is no better than the corporate world.

The Tragicomic: It’s embodied in the blues, jazz, (HIP HOP, CORNELL <<one slight deserves another!!!!<< REALLY MISSED THE BOAT ON THAT ONE!!!) and the African experience in the New World -- the ability to withstand terrorism, embrace one’s worst enemies lovingly and bear the unbearable in song.

Also, if people are as weary of the exorberant price of gas, then why don't we mobilize? Oh yeah, it's because things aren't as simple as a capitalist would make it out to be. People are still buying SUV's at a greater rate than hybrids; alternative fuels are still marginal. Yet most, if not all, oil companies are raking in billions per quarter alone. And don't even get me started about the slow market reaction to global warming (which i'm sure you don't even believe).

Answer these questions:

1. Do you think people are sick of paying as much as they do for gas?2. Why don't we collectively do the things necessary to change that via the system as it works (ie, stop buying gas, start demanding more efficient or alternative fuel vehicles)?

1. No they aren't. That is good for the Capitalist, and the socialist. The fed/state governments make more money from tax revenue on oil than the oil companies. That tax revenue goes to fund government intervention and socaial welfare systems.

2. Because of #1 we're aren't fed up with prices. In fact if you ever took economics you would know that we are no where near the point where price will effect demand significantly. Also note that we have some of the lowest fuel prices in the world.

As for global warming. We can't even keep from killing babies now, in abortion. Who cares if the planet catches fire there won't be anyone to enjoy it if we keep self exterminating. It's not really self extermination is it? If the government begins to sanction abortion and human embrio testing it will most likely be the poor who get exterminated, or sold as test tube slaves for scientific experiments.

That being said, what's important to keep in mind is that it doesn't matter if people are fed up with gas prices or not. The inconvenience you would have to go through in order to 'protest' against increased gas prices means you won't realistically be able to. Better example of the same issue is health care where essentially BigMed without governmental restrictions pretty much can do whatever they want, because people aren't going to go "Nah, medicine is too expensive, so I'm gonna protest by dying". No. So as long as the product you're selling is important enough, and the other people selling comparable products are in the same line as you, supply and demand doesn't apply. Even Adam Smith actually knew this, the supply and demand thesis is somewhat dependent on an equality in power between the actors, and the corporate world versus individual consumers is nowhere near equal.